Cargando…

Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 112 p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hu, Weiran, Yang, Guang, Wang, Hongqiang, Wu, Xiaonan, Ma, Haohao, Zhang, Kai, Gao, Yanzheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36556198
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12121977
_version_ 1784858034678267904
author Hu, Weiran
Yang, Guang
Wang, Hongqiang
Wu, Xiaonan
Ma, Haohao
Zhang, Kai
Gao, Yanzheng
author_facet Hu, Weiran
Yang, Guang
Wang, Hongqiang
Wu, Xiaonan
Ma, Haohao
Zhang, Kai
Gao, Yanzheng
author_sort Hu, Weiran
collection PubMed
description Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 112 patients were retrospectively analyzed, and were divided into an MIS-TLIF group and OPEN-TLIF group. The operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, the content of creatine kinase(CK) and complications, were recorded. VAS score and ODI index were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Bridwell grading was used to evaluate postoperative interbody fusion. Screw position was evaluated by Rao grading. Results: Compared with the OPEN-TLIF group, the MIS-TLIF group had longer operation times, more intraoperative fluoroscopy times, but shorter postoperative bed times (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the distribution of type A screws, but the type B screw in the MIS-TLIF group was higher (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The postoperative quality of life score and radiological outcomes of the two types of surgery in two-level lumbar degenerative diseases was similar, and there was no significant difference in muscle injury and complications, but the operation time and intraoperative radiation exposurewere higher than in the OPEN-TLIF group, and the pedicle screws were more likely to deviate laterally out of the vertebral body. Therefore, OPEN-TLIF is recommended for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases of two segments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9785381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97853812022-12-24 Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF? Hu, Weiran Yang, Guang Wang, Hongqiang Wu, Xiaonan Ma, Haohao Zhang, Kai Gao, Yanzheng J Pers Med Article Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 112 patients were retrospectively analyzed, and were divided into an MIS-TLIF group and OPEN-TLIF group. The operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, the content of creatine kinase(CK) and complications, were recorded. VAS score and ODI index were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Bridwell grading was used to evaluate postoperative interbody fusion. Screw position was evaluated by Rao grading. Results: Compared with the OPEN-TLIF group, the MIS-TLIF group had longer operation times, more intraoperative fluoroscopy times, but shorter postoperative bed times (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the distribution of type A screws, but the type B screw in the MIS-TLIF group was higher (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The postoperative quality of life score and radiological outcomes of the two types of surgery in two-level lumbar degenerative diseases was similar, and there was no significant difference in muscle injury and complications, but the operation time and intraoperative radiation exposurewere higher than in the OPEN-TLIF group, and the pedicle screws were more likely to deviate laterally out of the vertebral body. Therefore, OPEN-TLIF is recommended for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases of two segments. MDPI 2022-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9785381/ /pubmed/36556198 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12121977 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Hu, Weiran
Yang, Guang
Wang, Hongqiang
Wu, Xiaonan
Ma, Haohao
Zhang, Kai
Gao, Yanzheng
Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?
title Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?
title_full Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?
title_fullStr Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?
title_full_unstemmed Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?
title_short Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?
title_sort which is better in clinical and radiological outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease of two segments: mis-tlif or open-tlif?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36556198
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12121977
work_keys_str_mv AT huweiran whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif
AT yangguang whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif
AT wanghongqiang whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif
AT wuxiaonan whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif
AT mahaohao whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif
AT zhangkai whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif
AT gaoyanzheng whichisbetterinclinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforlumbardegenerativediseaseoftwosegmentsmistliforopentlif